On 23/07/2019 13:08, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 23.07.2019 11:20, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> --- a/xen/common/schedule.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/schedule.c
>> @@ -708,6 +708,8 @@ void restore_vcpu_affinity(struct domain *d)
>>* set v->processor of each of their vCPUs to something that will
>>
On 23.07.2019 11:20, Juergen Gross wrote:
> --- a/xen/common/schedule.c
> +++ b/xen/common/schedule.c
> @@ -708,6 +708,8 @@ void restore_vcpu_affinity(struct domain *d)
>* set v->processor of each of their vCPUs to something that will
>* make sense for the scheduler of the c
On 23.07.19 14:08, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 23.07.2019 11:20, Juergen Gross wrote:
--- a/xen/common/schedule.c
+++ b/xen/common/schedule.c
@@ -708,6 +708,8 @@ void restore_vcpu_affinity(struct domain *d)
* set v->processor of each of their vCPUs to something that will
* make
On Tue, 2019-07-23 at 11:20 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> Commit 0763cd2687897b55e7 ("xen/sched: don't disable scheduler on
> cpus
> during suspend") removed a lock in restore_vcpu_affinity() which
> needs
> to stay: cpumask_scratch_cpu() must be protected by the scheduler
> lock.
>
And indeed I r
Commit 0763cd2687897b55e7 ("xen/sched: don't disable scheduler on cpus
during suspend") removed a lock in restore_vcpu_affinity() which needs
to stay: cpumask_scratch_cpu() must be protected by the scheduler
lock. restore_vcpu_affinity() is being called by thaw_domains(), so
with multiple domains i
